Re: fine. no more orbl

On Monday 30 July 2001 13:46, Douglas J. Hunley wrote: [hackety slash] > 3. DONT bitch about any spam that makes it onto this list. I tried. Take a _deep_ breath Doug. No-one in their right minds is going to slap at you for trying things out. We are penguin users and by definition that means e

More Steps: July 31

Newbies-> The Curve weekly column by Randy Donohoe -- http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://linux.nf

Re: fine. no more orbl

On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 09:17:51PM -0600, Collins Richey wrote: > > Now I'll get bitchy. > > > 1. You provided no warning for this unilateral action. Nobody has a clue By long tradition, system administrators are free to do as they see fit with the system(s) they administer. While it may have

Re: fine. no more orbl

from Douglas J. Hunley: [...] " 2. this list didn't even exist until I thunk it up. and I was just trying to " provide the best resource for the group. i felt that having an open-list and Thankyou for doing it. Gotta remember, tho, that you can't please everyone and there'd be some who woul

Re: Help

ok. correction: there is nothing wrong with console mode admin via telnet or secured remote-shells Net Llama wrote: > --- Linuxism Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>btw, there is nothing wrong with telnet.. :) > Other than the fact that its a huge gaping security risk. __

Re: fine. no more orbl

The blocking also come from improper reverse lookup tables on the senders ISP DNS server. It seems if there is no reverse that corresponds to a MX server you get rejected as a possibly forged IP address. >>> Each of the following recipients was rejected by a remote mail server. The reasons given

Re: (no subject)

It worked. Interesting, I've only had sporadic trouble with @Home and Yahoo on this list. Jim On Sunday July 29, 2001 4:34 pm, Collins Richey wrote: > test -- 9:42pm up 5 days, 22:16, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

(no subject)

test -- Collins Richey Denver Area Gentoo_rc5 XFCE ___ http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc ->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users

Re: fine. no more orbl

>From: "Douglas J. Hunley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:16:38 -0400 > >Well, enough people complained to me that their admins are unresponsive, >don't care, whatever. Fine. I figured as much. ORBs sucked. they got >political. orbl actually checks it's hosts and keeps records up t

Re: Test

On Sunday 29 July 2001 17:14, Michael Scottaline babbled: > On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 16:55:59 -0400 > Michael Scottaline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> insightfully noted: > > MS> Hoping I can FINALLY get through!! Darn orbl! > MS> Mike > > YES!!! Sorry for responding to myself,

Re: fine. no more orbl

Well, let's play it by ear. If spam becomes a major problem, we can discuss a solution for it at that time. Jim On Sunday July 29, 2001 9:16 pm, Douglas J. Hunley wrote: > Well, enough people complained to me that their admins are unresponsive, > don't care, whatever. Fine. I figured as much.

Re: fine. no more orbl

On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:16:38 -0400 "Douglas J. Hunley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ---snip--- > ...enjoy your spam. > Message recieved, Doug. No problem... filters in place... ;') -- ** Registere

fine. no more orbl

Well, enough people complained to me that their admins are unresponsive, don't care, whatever. Fine. I figured as much. ORBs sucked. they got political. orbl actually checks it's hosts and keeps records up to date. but I understand some service providers simply can't be bothered. so fine, no m

Fwd: [cert-advisory@cert.org: Public Alert about the Code Red worm]

gonna be an interesting week, boys and girls. - Forwarded message from CERT Advisory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 16:20:45 -0400 (EDT) From: CERT Advisory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: CERT(R) Coordination Center - +1 412-268-7090 List-Help:

Re: REFUSED MAIL (please everyone read)

On Monday 30 July 2001 07:30, Terence McCarthy wrote: > On Sunday 29 July 2001 19:23, Philip J. Koenig wrote: > > 6) I don't know the current status, but I don't see any reason to > >allow posting to the list by non-members. > > Is that the case? If it is I would agree with you. seems like a

Re: QT?

You will need the QT 2.3.0 if you upgrade to KDE2.1.1 or higher. If you are going to keep/use any KDE1.1.2 programs, you will need to keep QT 1.44. QT 2.x is not backward compatible to QT 1.xx. Likewise when QT 3.x is release early next year, it will not be backward compatible to QT2.x. Jim

Re: Test

On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 16:55:59 -0400 Michael Scottaline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> insightfully noted: MS> Hoping I can FINALLY get through!! Darn orbl! MS> Mike YES!!! Sorry for responding to myself, but I'm celebrating the end of my isolation. I guess my ISP (i-2000.c

Test

Hoping I can FINALLY get through!! Darn orbl! Mike -- "A world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 a day, is neither just, nor stable." -PRESIDENT BUSH (dubya) ___ http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL P

QT?

Am I correct in thinking that qt2 (latest version) a complete replacement for all previous versions of QT? If so, is there any compelling reasons to keep QT 1.xx around on the harddrive? Thank you, in advance. -- **

Re: REFUSED MAIL (please everyone read)

On Sunday 29 July 2001 19:23, Philip J. Koenig wrote: > 6) I don't know the current status, but I don't see any reason to >allow posting to the list by non-members. Is that the case? If it is I would agree with you. Terence ___ http://linux.nf --

Re: REFUSED MAIL (please everyone read)

1) There is not a 1:1 relationship between open relays and spam 2) Most open relays will never have any spam touch them 3) Systems such as "ORBL" punish mostly non-spammers, and are abusive about the way they go about their probing and listing. They don't make a decent effort to inform se